(Note: This should not be interpreted as an argument against war protections or an argument against econ players. This is a general argument where "acquiring assets" may either mean profiting or raiding and "protecting assets" may either mean using war/level protections or maintaining an active defense.)
The competition is for assets.
This is purely an account building, asset acquiring game. The actions available to you are determined and limited by what assets you have. Assets are required to acquire more assets. The assets themselves are actually irrelevant (the assets only have any value in the context of the game) so much as acquiring the assets, this is the game of it. War? Econ? Both are simply means to this end.
You can never definitely WIN or LOSE simcountry as long as you still want to play, but are always in a state of winning or losing (assets).
The thing is you are playing against everyone. Never forget this. If you attack someone and don't gain assets, you are losing the game relative to your previous position. Maybe that one guy, he's losing moreso than you. This just means you're both losers. One players success or failure is not directly tied to your success or failure. It is possible for every player to be winning or every player to be losing simultaneously. If someone attacks you and you will lose assets regardless, minimizing losses is your goal in the war. The fewer the losses, the better off you are at the end of the war. The greater the gain in a war, the better off you are at the end of the war. The thing is being better off than you were previously is more important than being better off than the other guy as long as there are more than two sides... and I see more than two players around here.
The highest point possible for war is a war for server dominance, which at its root is nothing more than defeating the largest threat to your (federation) assets. The only reason to join federations is to learn how to protect your assets and acquire more assets... and support each other to provide a unified front against potential threats to your assets or "gangbang" asset raid smaller players. There is nothing deeper than this in the context of the game. A giant costly war where both sides lose assets is only possible if it has the "believed" potential of protecting assets in the future and/or acquiring assets now. This is the driving force of large costly wars; this is the driving force of rivalries: fear of losing assets and hope of acquiring assets.
The incentive to learn and play the game (as determined by the game) is here and Quetzal has failed to meet the demands of competition before the war started. If he wanted to protect his assets, this was possible, but by failing to WP, failing to build a defense, and failing to find allies before anything happened, he has failed to be viable competition and nothing more than food for the viable competition. This is way too little, way too late.
You are witness to competition and yet you still bemoan the lack of it. This is competition for assets! The only way there can be serious militant rivalries and actual competition is if the best strategies for acquiring assets dictate that players fight other players. If a war is a situation where the only possible outcome is that both sides lose assets, every player that starts a war is a nub because in all cases, they'd better off not fighting!
Anyone that says otherwise is a dirty liar.
It is more likely that many players do not like war because:
1) It is much more complex and time consuming to learn and do than econ only.
2) It is much riskier than econ-only and is much more difficult to win (as defined by previous parameters not by winning the war - excluding C3 wars: nubs with juicy countries and no allies or defense might as well be C3s... in this case, a C3 would be harder and less rewarding to conquer).
tl;dr
War is essentially just another competition for assets in the exact same manner as econ.
The most likely reason players don't war is because it is a high risk, low reward game (against "competitive" opponents) that must be learned, mastered, and invested into for quite a while just to make it a high risk, low reward game and not a guaranteed handing-over of assets to whoever walks by... in other words, it's easier and probably better for them to stick to the econ-only strategy.
